linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] topology: Represent clusters of CPUs within a die

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4zCYjha8E6km9fDO8gFR-_vO1Nr0=a7V-b9yLRZGGAC9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:43:22 +1300
From:   Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guodong Xu <guodong.xu@...aro.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        "Cc: Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, msys.mizuma@...il.com,
        "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        yangyicong <yangyicong@...wei.com>,
        Tian Tao <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] topology: Represent clusters of CPUs within a die

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:34 AM Valentin Schneider
<valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
>
> On 24/09/21 20:51, Barry Song wrote:
> >  void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
> >  {
> >       struct cpu_topology *cpu_topo, *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
> > @@ -617,6 +622,11 @@ void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
> >               if (cpuid_topo->package_id != cpu_topo->package_id)
> >                       continue;
> >
> > +             if (cpuid_topo->cluster_id == cpu_topo->cluster_id) {
> > +                     cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->cluster_sibling);
> > +                     cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->cluster_sibling);
> > +             }
> > +
>
> Hm so without cluster information (e.g. DT system), we have
> ->cluster_id=-1, we'll essentially copy the package mask into the cluster
> mask.
>
> The exposed cluster mask is still <= package mask which is sensible. Are we
> fine with that, or do we need/want the mask to be empty in the -1 case? I'm
> guessing userspace tools should check for either id!=-1 or if the exclusive
> disjucntion of cluster vs package masks is non-empty.

Hi Valentin,
Yep, this is a very good question. I'd like change the code to:
diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
index 7cb31d959f33..fc0836f460fb 100644
--- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
+++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
@@ -622,7 +622,8 @@ void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
                if (cpuid_topo->package_id != cpu_topo->package_id)
                        continue;

-               if (cpuid_topo->cluster_id == cpu_topo->cluster_id) {
+               if (cpuid_topo->cluster_id == cpu_topo->cluster_id &&
+                   cpuid_topo->cluster_id != -1) {
                        cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->cluster_sibling);
                        cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->cluster_sibling);
                }

This should be consistent with Tim's patch3/3 for x86 in case
id is BAD_APICID:
static bool match_l2c(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
{
        ...
        /* Do not match if we do not have a valid APICID for cpu: */
        if (per_cpu(cpu_l2c_id, cpu1) == BAD_APICID)
                return false;
        ...
}

Thanks
Barry